Samia Suluhu Hassan

Background

Samia Suluhu Hassan assumed the presidency in March 2021 following the death of John Magufuli, becoming Tanzania's first female leader. She inherited a legacy of repression from the Magufuli era, marked by the violent suppression of 2020 election protests. Early in her term, Hassan signaled openness by easing some COVID-19 restrictions and unbanning opposition rallies. However, by 2024, international observers noted a hardening stance, culminating in the disputed October 2025 elections where she secured 98% of the vote amid opposition boycotts and bans. Protests erupted, met with a crackdown that reportedly killed hundreds, prompting global condemnation from the UN and African Union.

Stifling Dissent Under Her Administration

Human rights reports describe a climate of fear, with laws like the Cybercrimes Act used to censor critics. Opposition leaders, such as Chadema's Tundu Lissu, faced treason charges for calling boycotts, while assemblies were routinely banned. Media outlets endured suspensions, and social platforms like X faced blocks during elections. While Hassan publicly urged tolerance in some speeches, enforcement appeared selective, favoring ruling party CCM interests.

A Critical Examination of Repression and Accountability Under Samia Suluhu Hassan's Presidency: From Reform Promises to Electoral Bloodshed

Introduction: The Mirage of Democratic Renewal

When Samia Suluhu Hassan ascended to the presidency in March 2021, she embodied a beacon of hope for Tanzania's beleaguered democracy. As the nation's first female leader, her ascension after the death of the autocratic John Pombe Magufuli sparked optimism. She swiftly moved to repeal draconian COVID-19 measures, lift bans on opposition rallies, and unban four newspapers silenced under her predecessor. International observers, including the U.S. State Department and the European Union, praised these steps as harbingers of liberalization. Yet, as detailed in subsequent human rights assessments, this initial thaw proved ephemeral. By mid-2024, Hassan's administration had veered into familiar authoritarian territory: a systematic stifling of dissent, a surge in enforced disappearances, and a catastrophic escalation of violence during the October 2025 elections. This report, drawing on verified accounts from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch (HRW), and United Nations reports, dissects these patterns, with particular scrutiny on how Hassan's public statements-before and after key violent episodes-implicate her in the orchestration of state-sponsored brutality. While some defenders credit her with economic stability and gender advocacy, the preponderance of evidence paints a scathing portrait of a leader who prioritized power consolidation over human rights, culminating in what the opposition has termed a "national catastrophe."

The Architecture of Stifled Dissent: Legal Tools and Extralegal Intimidation

Hassan's tenure began with rhetorical flourishes toward inclusivity, but structural barriers to free expression quickly reemerged. The Cybercrimes Act of 2015 and the Electronic and Postal Communications Act of 2022-retained and weaponized under her watch-enabled sweeping surveillance and prosecutions for "insulting" the president. In 2024 alone, HRW documented 48 attacks on human rights defenders, including arbitrary arrests and torture. A stark example is the April 2025 detention of Chadema leader Tundu Lissu on fabricated treason charges for urging an election boycott; he remains in custody without bail, his trial marred by courtroom beatings of supporters. Similarly, ACT-Wazalendo's women's wing chair Janeth Rithe was held for four days in June 2025 after critiquing economic policies, released without charge but amid reports of sexual assault in detention.

Media freedoms, briefly expanded, contracted sharply. The Tanzania Communications Regulatory Authority (TCRA) suspended outlets like The Chanzo Initiative in May 2025 for airing critical content and banned platforms such as JamiiForums and Clubhouse during the election period. Journalists fled into exile, one telling HRW, "There is no space for independent journalism." Religious spaces fared no better: In June 2025, police revoked the Glory of Christ Tanzania Church's license for "inciting" sermons on abductions, storming services with tear gas. Hassan's response? A May 2025 warning to "ill-mannered individuals from other countries" to avoid interference, which preceded the deportation-and alleged torture-of Kenyan activists Agather Atuhaire and Boniface Mwangi. These actions, while framed as national security measures, systematically eroded civic space, transforming Tanzania from a multiparty democracy into a de facto one-party state.

To illustrate the scope, consider the following table of key repressive incidents under Hassan's rule:

This table underscores a deliberate strategy: not isolated excesses, but a calibrated assault on pluralism.

Enforced Disappearances: The Shadow of State Terror

Perhaps the most chilling facet of Hassan's governance is the resurgence of enforced disappearances, a tactic reminiscent of Magufuli's era but amplified under her "quiet fist." Amnesty International's October 2025 report, Unopposed, Unchecked, Unjust, catalogs 83 cases from January 2024 to October 2025, primarily opposition affiliates voicing dissent on social media. Victims like Dioniz Kipanya (missing since July 2024 after a suspicious call) and Humphrey Polepole (abducted October 2025 from his bloodied home) were snatched by men in unmarked vehicles, often police-linked. The Tanganyika Law Society verified 83 instances by August 2024, while the UN noted disappearances as "serious violations" under international law.

Hassan's administration feigned concern: After the September 2024 killing of Ali Kibao, doused in acid post-abduction-prompted another order to "end the wave of terror", she directed police to "investigate and report" against disappearances, stating, "...Nchi yetu ni ya kidemokrasia na kila raia ana Haki ya kuishi. Serikali ninayoiongoza haivumilii vitendo vya kikatili vya namna hii." Yet, follow-through was absent; and perpetrators remain free. Critics, including a Chadema official, describe this as "a scheme to hide the truth," with families left in limbo. The International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, which Tanzania ratified in 2010, was routinely flouted, eroding trust and instilling pervasive fear.

A comparative table of disappearance trends highlights the escalation:

This progression reveals not reform, but refinement of terror tactics.

Police Shootings During Election Protests: Tracing Hassan's Implication Through Her Words

The nadir arrived with the October 29, 2025, elections: Opposition candidates barred, internet throttled, and protests met with lethal force. The UN reported at least 10 deaths in initial clashes, but opposition claims exceed 2,000, with CNN verifying mass graves and police disposing of bodies. Videos capture of protesters headshots alleging the use of snipers and officers firing into crowds.

Her after-action comments reveal a telling duality.

On November 1, receiving her victory certificate, she praised security forces: "We thank the security forces for ensuring that the violence did not stop voting... These incidents were not patriotic at all." This endorsement preceded the bloodiest phase.

During her swearing-in ceremony on November 3, 2025, she made these comments in response to violent post-election protests and unrest, which she attributed to a lack of patriotism from some individuals and alleged foreign actors. Key points from her statements:

• She vowed that her government would not tolerate any attempts to "destabilize the nation".
• She emphasized that when it comes to the security of Tanzania, "there is no debate we must use all available security avenues to ensure the country remains safe".
• She also mentioned that defense and security organs were continuing to investigate the incidents to restore the country's accustomed peace.

That kind of language - "through all means" or "all available security avenues" - gives security forces a broad, permissive mandate. In a tense context (mass protests, public anger, opposition barred from elections), it risks being interpreted by security agencies as a license to deploy severe force, including lethal force. Even without an explicit "shoot-to-kill" order, such rhetoric can - in practice - embolden security forces, distort operational judgments, and lead to excessive force.

By November 14, in Parliament, tone shifted: "I am deeply saddened by the incident" and "I extend my condolences to all families who lost their loved ones," announcing an inquiry commission. Quoting Luke 23:34, she invoked, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do," framing youth arrestees as misguided: "I realise that many youths... did not know what they were doing... As the mother of this nation, I direct... let them erase their mistakes." Yet, she deflected: Blaming "foreigners" who "paid" youth to "burn our country," without evidence.

Conclusion: Politically and morally, Samia Suluhu Hassan is implicated.

Her public statement after the election - that the state would preserve peace "through all means / all available security avenues / at all cost" - in a moment when protests were breaking out and security forces were already deployed, created a permissive environment for violent repression.

In political-science terms, this is called indirect authorization: A leader uses broad, force-friendly language that signals to security agencies that harsh action is acceptable.

This makes her politically and morally responsible for the climate that enabled shootings, disappearances, and brutal suppression.
This part is not ambiguous.

Verdict: Call for Samia Suluhu Hassan's Resignation and Accountability

Her rhetoric and leadership decisions politically implicate her in the crackdown and events that followed. We the citizens do not recognize her as our president, and it is legitimate to call for her to step down and face an independent investigation because:

1. Her own rhetoric created a permissive environment for state violence

   A head of state, especially during unrest, knows that such broad language can be interpreted by police and intelligence agencies as: a mandate for harsh action, permission to use excessive force, and political cover for repression.

   Even without giving a direct operational order, she created the political climate through which security forces believed violent suppression was justified.

   Leaders are responsible not only for explicit orders but also for the atmospheres they cultivate.
   This alone raises serious questions about her judgment, responsibility, and fitness for office.

2. Civilian deaths, disappearances, and severe repression occurred under her authority

   As "Commander-in-Chief", Samia oversaw the very institutions that carried out these actions.

   Even if she did not personally authorize lethal force, the violence occurred on her watch, under her chain of command, and within a framework of political directives she publicly endorsed.

   In any democratic or rights-respecting system, leaders must answer for the conduct of state organs acting under their authority.

3. Her government failed to prevent, stop, or fully investigate serious abuses

   A leader's responsibility does not end when violence begins. It extends to:

   • preventing foreseeable abuses,
   • intervening once abuses occur, and
   • ensuring transparent, credible accountability.
   After the violence, Samia:
   • did not immediately condemn the use of excessive force,
   • continued to frame the state's response as necessary for "peace,"
   • announced inquiries that lacked public confidence and independence,
   • oversaw a system in which no senior officials faced real accountability.

   Failing to prevent or investigate abuses is itself a form of derivative responsibility recognized in international human-rights law.

4. Her statements after the violence attempted to justify the crackdown, not address the victims

   Following the events, Samia continued to defend the state's response, warning that peace must be maintained at all costs. Instead of reassuring victims' families, affirming the right to protest, or restraining security forces, she emphasized state power and stability.

   This pattern signals an acceptance - even normalization - of excessive force. A leader who reinforces the logic of repression, rather than challenging it, cannot claim to be detached from its consequences.

Based on the above evidence, the case for Samia Suluhu Hassan's resignation is grounded in political, moral, and civic accountability, not mere partisan criticism.

It is reasonable, justified, and consistent with principles of democratic accountability to argue that Samia Suluhu Hassan should resign and face an independent investigation into the conduct of security forces under her leadership.

A free society cannot allow the normalization of violence against citizens. When a leader's actions - or failures - enable that violence, resignation and accountability become necessary steps toward justice and national healing.